Zistics Transport CC v DUSWO and Others (JR 78/18) [2020] ZALCJHB 220 (7 May 2020)

Zistics Transport CC v DUSWO and Others (JR 78/18) [2020] ZALCJHB 220 (7 May 2020)

The court held that the Bargaining Council had jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute, as the employees alleged dismissal for unknown reasons and the Labour Relations Act permits arbitration in such circumstances. The evidence established that the employees were dismissed: they were told to leave, locked out, and not paid, with no countervailing evidence from the applicant. The arbitrator's refusal to postpone was justified, as no good grounds were advanced. The finding of procedural and substantive unfairness was reasonable, given the applicant's failure to discharge its statutory onus to prove fairness. The application for review was dismissed as the award was reasonable and free of...

Citation
[2020] ZALCJHB 220
Parties
Applicant: Zistics Transport CC; Respondent: DUSWO; Respondent: Simelane Sicelo & 10 Others; Respondent: Commissioner M P Mngomezulu; Respondent: NBCRFLI
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 May 2020
Case Number
JR 78/18
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed.
Judges
G N Moshoana
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Jurisdiction of Bargaining Council, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Postponement of Arbitration, Onus of Proof
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Jurisdiction of Bargaining Council Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Postponement of Arbitration Onus of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zistics Transport CC

Applicant

DUSWO

Respondent

Simelane Sicelo & 10 Others

Respondent

Commissioner M P Mngomezulu

Respondent

NBCRFLI

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bargaining Council had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissed employees were in fact dismissed.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award was reasonable and free of reviewable defects.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Bargaining Council had jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute, as the employees alleged dismissal for unknown reasons and the Labour Relations Act permits arbitration in such circumstances. The evidence established that the employees were dismissed: they were told to leave, locked out, and not paid, with no countervailing evidence from the applicant. The arbitrator's refusal to postpone was justified, as no good grounds were advanced. The finding of procedural and substantive unfairness was reasonable, given the applicant's failure to discharge its statutory onus to prove fairness. The application for review was dismissed as the award was reasonable and free of...

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.